Is it possible that God can relent on the eternal punishment in Hell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello Chimo.
It would seem to be that the person who wants Hell does not change. It is not God who needs to relent but the person is not willing to relent at all. Perhaps the soul is so sick that it cannot recover. For instance God can give His Grace to anyone but let us say when God will give His Grace to a certain soul this soul rejects it very violently. Now will God give this grace again to this soul? How can He if the soul does not want it. Perhaps the souls who are like this are in the same category of those who are in Hell. They just hate more when Grace is given for them. I was taught by a Roman Catholic priest that when your soul leaves the body at death your will which is part of your soul becomes naturally fixed. In this way the soul will not be inclined to sin once the Graces of God were accepted beforehand. However if you spurn the Grace of God in this life and your will becomes naturally fixed there is no way the soul will ever get better. What is God going to do? Why does a soul reject Grace? There has to be the enormous gravity of living a very sinful life rejecting all forms of Grace even by hating it more if one is touched by it. There has to be a very longing to hatred within a person to do such an act. I believe this occurs in the devil. There is a great hatred in the devil towards God and to us because there is a great hatred within.
The problem is that the person you are talking to in the reply you made thinks after death there is somehow going to be a second chance and that the particular judgment that each person undergoes at death will somehow lead to a second chance and THEN they’ll repent. But the rest of us know the truth - that is when it is too late to repent. The error comes from a belief in universal salvation which is a mistake too. I can tell from your sharing that you are talking about the soul turning to God before death, repentance. That is Catholic, but neither a 2nd chance to repent after death nor universal salvation are catholic teaching. The person you’re responding to may believe those things can be reconciled to Catholic teaching but they are both errors. That’s the truth.

Glenda
 
If people in hell are incapable of change because hell is outside of time, how is it that people in purgatory are capable of change? Isnt purgatory outside of time too?
If purgatory means change then that necessarily implies that it’s not a part of eternity.
 
Hello everybody. Regarding the insinuation that it is possible to hold a belief in any kind of Universal Salvation or a Restoration of all creation via the grace of God because St. Gregory of Nyssa held those beliefs, please note that his life was lived from the years 335 to 395 A.D. and it was in the year 553 A.D. that these things were definitively and for all CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH. So there is a few years leeway for his misunderstanding. He did not teach that he only speculated about it in one of his writings, The Life of Moses and it was a reflection on two passages of Scriptures, Philippians 2:10 and 1 Corinthians 15:28. These are reflections, not presented as definitive Church teaching or doctrine. Big difference.

For further understanding follow the link below to EWTN’s Library and read through the Documents of the 2nd Council of Constantinople. The very last Anathema delivered was the one this thread is about. It condemns the notion that there is somehow a second chance given souls in Hell and that even the demons will somehow be “saved.”

This is the 9th Anathema listed in the Documents of the Second Council of Constantinople (aka. The 5th Ecumenical Council)
IX. If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (apokata’stasis) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PII14-6.TXT

Glenda
 
Hello Seraphim.
St Gregory and especially and St Isaac both taught that eventually all humans will come to accept God’s love and mercy. I agree with them that it’s a possibility.
No they did not. They speculated upon those notions. They reflected upon them but they NEVER said that is what Jesus taught. You’re reading into their texts things that aren’t there. Besides that, as I’ve said here in this thread and elsewhere, these notions were condemned by the Church at the 2nd Council of Constantinople. they delivered an anathema over them. That is a forever thing. It doesn’t get rescinded. Ever.

If you think you’re smart enough to find the loop hole in the problem, good luck. Let me know how that works for you. But it don’t hold water with me.

Glenda
 
If purgatory means change then that necessarily implies that it’s not a part of eternity.
Although Purgatory can be served on earth, is it also on earth for the souls that have died? If not, where or what, is Purgatory?
 
The door to hell is locked from the inside.
Because its outside of time, therefore no change is possible. However, purgatory involves change and a before and after. So purgatory must be within time?

I wonder why if Purgatory can be inside of time somehow, why God couldn’t grant that same time to those in hell.
 
As for those of you who will visit the link “proving” St. Gregory of Nyssa actually tauth this stuff, please do note that further down in the article is this:

**These verbal contradictions explain why the defenders of orthodoxy should have thought that St. Gregory of Nyssa’s writings had been tampered with by heretics. St. Germanus of Constantinople, writing in the eighth century, went so far as to say that those who held that the devils and lost souls would one day be set free had dared “to instill into the pure and most healthful spring of his [Gregory’s] writings the black and dangerous poison of the error of Origen, and to cunningly attribute this foolish heresy to a man famous alike for his virtue and his learning” (quoted by Photius, Bibl. Cod., 223; P.G. CIII, col. 1105). Tillemont, “Mémoires pour l’histoire ecclésiastique” (Paris, 1703), IX, p. 602, inclines to the opinion that St. Germanus had good grounds for what he said. We must, however, admit, with Bardenhewer (loc. cit.) that the explanation given by St. Germanus of Constantinople cannot hold. This was, also, the opinion of Petavius, “Theolog. dogmat.” (Antwerp, 1700), III, “De Angelis”, 109-111. **

newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

Now, if you think you know more than St. Germanus or the other theologians who defended St. Gregory as an orthodox teacher and said that the errors were placed in the copies of writings of St. Gregory so as to discredit him or show that these errors were taught by him or believed by him, go right ahead. But if you ask this little widow, you falling for the same smelly soup they tried passing off back then.

Glenda
 
arte;12176486:
The Catholic teaching is that Satan was a good angel that sinned and fell as a result, and the same for some other angels. It was an irrevocable free choice.

Catechism
391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. 266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”. 267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.” 268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels. 269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably *rejected *God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.” 270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”. 271

393 It is the *irrevocable *character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. “There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.” 272

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” 617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

Father Hardon, S.J. wrote:

29. Why do rationalists deny the existence of angels?
The Sadducees among the Jews, the Socinians in the Middle Ages, and the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century regarded the angels as only metaphorical personifications of divine power. Modern Rationalists unanimously reject the existence of an angelic world.*38. Do all Christians believe that the angels were originally created in the state of grace?*This has been the common teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus Saint John Damascene says, “All the angels were created by the Word of God and perfected by the Holy Spirit through sanctification; corresponding to their dignity and to their order of rank, they became participators in the illumination and the grace”(The Orthodox Faith, II, 3).*39. Who denies the fall and damnation of the angels?*All Materialists, Rationalists, and Spirtualists deny both that the angels fell from God’s friendship and that they were eternally condemned to hell.​

Hi Vico,
You have actually half answered the question yourself about my reasoning logic that an archangel and a third of the angles in Heaven could not have defected resulting in God having to create Hell. In fact you have strengthened my disbelief in angels defecting by your quote. Under the writings of Father Harden Paragraph 38: Do all Christians believe that the angels were originally created in the state of grace?
This has been the common teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus Saint John Damascene says, “All the angels were created by the Word of God and perfected by the Holy Spirit through sanctification; corresponding to their dignity and to their order of rank, they became participators in the illumination and the grace”. Angels were** perfected by the Holy Spirit corresponding to their dignity and to their order of rank. If they were perfected by the Holy Spirit surely they cannot commit sin. An archangel is even more perfected because of his rank. As an ex military man of 26 years service, I can claim to be an expert on rank. So now we have angels who were perfected by the Holy Spirit and one of them is I guess equivalent to a Brigadier General because there are not many archangels and we have to leave space for more senior ranks in Heaven. A Brigadier General commands a Brigade and he would give 110% to the mission given to him by his seniors (in this case God) and he would only expect 100% from his brigade officers and soldiers. These perfected beings “live” in Heaven where there is no sin.** So now you have doubled the logic behind the fact that an archangel and angels could not defect.
 
Vico;12176801:
…Thus Saint John Damascene says, “All the angels were created by the Word of God and perfected by the Holy Spirit through sanctification; corresponding to their dignity and to their order of rank, they became participators in the illumination and the grace”. Angels were** perfected **
by the Holy Spirit corresponding to their dignity and to their order of rank. If they were perfected by the Holy Spirit surely they cannot commit sin. An archangel is even more perfected because of his rank…

St. John Damascene also wrote in the Exact Expositon of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapters II and IV:**CHAPTER IlI Concerning angels.

**He is Himself the Maker and Creator of the angels: for He brought them out of nothing into being and created them after His own image, an incorporeal race, a sort of spirit or immaterial fire: in the words of the divine David, He maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire: and He has described their lightness and the ardour, and heat, and keenness and sharpness with which they hunger for God and serve Him, and how they are borne to the regions above and are quite delivered from all material thought. An angel, then, is an intelligent essence, in perpetual motion, with free-will, incorporeal, ministering to God, having obtained by grace an immortal nature: and the Creator alone knows the form and limitation of its essence. But all that we can understand is, that it is incorporeal and immaterial. For all that is compared with God Who alone is incomparable, we find to be dense and material. For in reality only the Deity is immaterial and incorporeal.

The angel’s nature then is rational, and intelligent, and endowed with free-will, change. able in will, or fickle. For all that is created is changeable, and only that which is un-created is unchangeable. Also all that is rational is endowed with free-will. As it is, then, rational and intelligent, it is endowed with free-will: and as it is created, it is changeable, having power either to abide or progress in goodness, or to turn towards evil.

It is not susceptible of repentance because it is incorporeal. For it is owing to the weakness of his body that man comes to have repentance.

It is immortal, not by natures but by grace. For all that has had beginning comes also to its natural end. But God alone is eternal, or rather, He is above the Eternal: for He, the Creator of times, is not under the dominion of time, but above time.

They are secondary intelligent lights derived from that first light which is without beginning, for they have the power of illumination; they have no need of tongue or hearing, but without uttering words they communicate to each other their own thoughts and counsels.**

CHAPTER IV. Concerning the devil and demons.**
He who from among these angelic powers was set over the earthly realm, and into whose hands God committed the guardianship of the earth, was not made wicked in nature but was good, and made for good ends, and received from his Creator no trace whatever of evil in himself. But he did not sustain the brightness and the honour which the Creator had bestowed on him, and of his free choice was changed from what was in harmony to what was at variance with his nature, and became roused against God Who created him, and determined to rise in rebellion against Him: and he was the first to depart from good and become evil. For evil is nothing else than absence of goodness, just as darkness also is absence of light. For goodness is the light of the mind, and, similarly, evil is the darkness of the mind. Light, therefore, being the work of the Creator and being made good (for God saw all that He made, and behold they were exceeding good) produced darkness at His free-will. But along with him an innumerable host of angels subject to him were torn away and followed him and shared in his fall. Wherefore, being of the same nature as the angels, they became wicked, turning away at their own free choice from good to evil

Hence they have no power or strength against any one except what God in His dispensation hath conceded to them, as for instance, against Job and those swine that are mentioned in the Gospels. But when God has made the concession they do prevail, and are changed and transformed into any form whatever in which they wish to appear.

Of the future both the angels of God and the demons are alike ignorant: yet they make predictions. God reveals the future to the angels and commands them to prophesy, and so what they say comes to pass. But the demons also make predictions, sometimes because they see what is happening at a distance, and sometimes merely making guesses: hence much that they say is false and they should not be believed, even although they do often, in the way we have said, tell what is true. Besides they know the Scriptures.

All wickedness, then, and all impure passions are the work of their mind. But while the liberty to attack man has been granted to them, they have not the strength to over master any one: for we have it in Our God Himself, Whom we glorify as Three in One, created the heaven and the earth and all that they contain, and brought all things out of nothing into being: some He made out of no pre-existing basis of matter, such as heaven, earth, air, fire, water: and the rest out of these elements that He had created, such as living creatures, plants, seeds. For these are made up of earth, and water, and air, and fire, at the bidding of the Creator.
 
So, at this point I am going under the assumption that you have forgiven me, and we can continue to discuss matters without resentment influencing tone. In the interest of brevity, I have clipped much of your response; I apologize.
Given something which you seem to be implying I suspect(notice that I didn’t say “feel”)that you’ll be apologizing again.

As far as forgiveness goes, I’m not so self interested that I keep score of every instance where my “feelings” may or may not have been hurt. I’m neither offended by frank speech(as you appear to be).
40.png
OneSheep:
I disagree completely, but I understand your point of view. To me, to grow in Love means to grow in empathy.
Here is the problem with “empathy” and your argument from sincerity, that even with “the best will in the world” you may be leading your fellow brothers and sisters to their destruction.

Yours is the sin of presumption. Your view is that God will not punish people(“me”) for honest mistakes? But is that all you were thinking about? Are we ready to run the risk of working in the dark all our lives and doing infinite harm, provided only someone(like your priest perhaps)will assure us that our own skins will be safe, that no one will punish us or blame us?

Suppose you found a man at the point of starvation and out of empathy wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and the result is that the man would die.

That is what comes from working in the dark.
40.png
OneSheep:
We no longer need “moral obligations” to guide our behavior, because the law is written in our hearts. Only those with the most compromised ability to empathize such as psycho/sociopaths do not consider the feelings and needs of coworkers and bosses.
And here it is. So am I to infer from this since I posited that their feelings are irrelevant to the man’s duty to honor his commitment to work that I am, according to you, a psycho/sociopath?

Nevermind, you don’t need to answer that, it was a rhetorical question. I just had to establish the level of credibility you now possess in regards to the subject at hand.
40.png
OneSheep:
To me, the feelings and needs of others are very relevant. Do you consider the feelings and needs of others when you choose a particular behavior?
As with any moral decision, it depends on the object, the intent, and the circumstances.
40.png
OneSheep:
(Note: I am not dismissing the value of “moral obligations”. Such obligations are important guides for children and those of us whose experiences have not led to growth in empathy.)
This makes me wonder if you have ever bothered to read the Catechism and its section on moral decision making. You’re making something very clear and very simple into something very convoluted.
40.png
OneSheep:
Yes, we can assert that it is his moral obligation, but if he has not “bought into” the assertion, then such an assertion does not guide his behavior.
If he has not “bought in” to something which he is morally obligated to “buy in” to, then he is acting dishonestly. This moral obligation includes him doing his due diligence to find out what he is to “buy in” to. Again, ignorance itself is a sin.
40.png
OneSheep:
We definitely use the word “dishonest” in different way. If a person says “I don’t think that it is my obligation to check the assignment board.” then he could be speaking very truthfully, he is being honest.
Now you’re conflating terms. What your implying is not honesty, it is “sincerity.”

Honesty is objective. Sincerity is subjective and relative. One would wonder if its even actual sincerity but merely a “feeling” like certitude.

He may sincerely believe that it is not his responsibility to check the assignment board, but honesty demands that he do. He has a job to do, and part of that job, his assignment, is listed on that board. If he refuses to check it, no matter how “sincere” his subjective belief, honesty demands that he go to the board, find his name, and check his assignment.
 
cont’d
40.png
OneSheep:
On the other hand, if he is doing so when having already signed something that says he will, then the dishonesty lies in the fact that he made a promise that he would abide by the rules. Now, he may have neglected to note that when he agreed to employment, he was obligated to check the assignment board. In that case, this was not a matter of “dishonesty” in my opinion, but neglect. In any case, these are explanations, and do certainly not excuse him from punitive action by his employer. I think my definition of “honesty” is more restrictive, and yours is more general. No problem.
neglect: (tra vb),
1.not care for something properly: to fail to give the proper or required care and attention to somebody or something
2.fail to do something: to fail to do something, especially because of carelessness, forgetfulness, or indifference
3.withholding of proper care: the act of failing to give proper care or attention to somebody or something

Neglect also necessarily implies culpability, neglect is by definition dishonest, it is a sin of omission(CCC 1853).

So there is a serious flaw and definitely a problem in your thinking.
40.png
OneSheep:
Perhaps there is a more underlying question. Is an explanation the same as an excuse? A person may use an explanation to escape consequence, in order to appeal for forgiveness, true. However, if such attempt to escape consequence also triggers resentment in me, then my calling is to also forgive the attempt to escape consequence, and I do so by looking for an explanation. Whenever I look into why people do what they do, and understand that I could have done the same, then I have taken one of the vital steps toward mature forgiveness. In my experiences and observations, both the immoral behavior and the attempt to avoid consequence occur with the necessary component of ignorance and/or blindness.
This is simply you editorializing, not even worth responding to. We could advance the discussion if you’d simply stick to the facts, what we know and what we can prove.
40.png
OneSheep:
Which brings us back to “us” again. Have you ever made a decision in the wrong where ignorance and/or blindness is not a factor? Search your past sins and try to objectively explain why you did what you did instead of looking at each explanation as an “excuse”, which means that your own self-condemnation has been triggered.
This again is a serious flaw in your opinion, that of sincerity. Even if I sinned out of ignorance or blindness, the fact is that I still sinned, and I was guilty of that sin. My ignorance/blindness never mitigated my guilt.(cf. CCC 1801).
40.png
OneSheep:
Self-condemnation is an inhibition to objectivity. Remember what the priest said? “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.”
This conversation is proof that the highlighted statement is absolutely not true.

When Peter first encountered Jesus(Luke 5), his first act was that of self-condemnation," Depart from me Lord, for I was a sinful man."

Self condemnation is clarity of the soul, “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, for the truth is not in us.”(1 Jn 1:8); self-condemnation is humility, it is the recognition of the truth.

Here is another piece of wisdom from St. Jerome, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”
40.png
OneSheep:
This is a very, very pertinent point, and I have had to ponder this myself. A priest once told us “God always forgives.” So, if God always forgives, why would Jesus need to make the plea in the first place?

So, in order to for this special verse to make sense to me, I am thinking…
I’m frankly really not interested in another “interpretation” from you. I got this sort of thing as a protestant, “this is what this verse means to me…”

It is a violation of the rules of hermeneutics(that is the science of interpretation); specifically to separate interpretation from belief. IOW to get your ego out of the way and instead try to find out what the author himself meant instead of reading your beliefs into them.
40.png
OneSheep:
Have you ever wanted an innocent man to die? Not me. I have wanted a guilty man to die, though. In their eyes, Jesus was guilty of blasphemy. Yes, even for blasphemy, the penalty was a bit severe, but this aspect is beside the point. The people resented Jesus,** they did not forgive Him for His words**. Can you relate to this? I think you can. I can.🙂
More editorializing; really not interested. The point is that they knew what Jesus told them, they knew that they were condemning an innocent man, and they killed Him anyway. It was a sin, period. Ignorance did not free them from the fact that it was a sin nor did it mitigate their culpability. No amount of pontificating on your part can explain away these facts.
 
What did they mean by “all humans”?

There are many things which are “possible” so long as they are not non-contradictory.

If “nothing unclean can enter” heaven, you cannot have a soul which is in fact not clean enter heaven.

The options seem to be these three: 1) Universal salvation, 2) Annihilation of the damned or 3) heaven and hell (the orthodox position)

1)Seems to take sin too lightly and refuses to see the true ugliness and spiritual death which results from it. It makes mock of God’s justice which prompted Jesus’s crucifixion for our salvation.
  1. Seems to be contrary to God’s love altogether. Why would God create souls in time if only to annihilate them later.
  2. Despite the attitudes of some here this option is the only one which makes any sense of the data. Those who are saved are rewarded for their obedience and faith with the fullness of life. Those who refuse salvation are given precisely what they wanted, the prisons of their own egocentric self worship. In both cases God lets His creation have it “their way”. God is still “in all”; the fire which according to the saints is His loving embrace at the same time is unbearable torment for those in hell.
The problem stems from William of Ockham and other “enlightenment” thinkers who completely corrupted traditional orthodoxy and the terms and definitions behind them with absurd modernist concepts.

Sin is too commonly thought not as a broken relationship but as a broken law, like jaywalking or driving over the speed limit. They forget that sin has a direct effect on our whole being and that it’s not just merely a broken rule.

There’s a reason why Christ said, “Those who sin are slaves to sin.” A slave has no will in the matter regarding his slavery, he has no identity apart from his master(that’s why slaves were given the surname of their masters). And a slave who refuses to be free will remain a slave forever.
The point is isn’t there is not a hell but that torment in hell is God’s love experienced by pain by those that reject him. St Gregory and St Isaas simply hoped that all would eventually accept God’s love.
 
Hello Seraphim.

No they did not. They speculated upon those notions. They reflected upon them but they NEVER said that is what Jesus taught. You’re reading into their texts things that aren’t there. Besides that, as I’ve said here in this thread and elsewhere, these notions were condemned by the Church at the 2nd Council of Constantinople. they delivered an anathema over them. That is a forever thing. It doesn’t get rescinded. Ever.

If you think you’re smart enough to find the loop hole in the problem, good luck. Let me know how that works for you. But it don’t hold water with me.

Glenda
There was never an anathema issued against universal salvation. That’s just simply not true. At least not during the Seven Councils recognized by both the east and west.
 
The point is isn’t there is not a hell but that torment in hell is God’s love experienced by pain by those that reject him. St Gregory and St Isaas simply hoped that all would eventually accept God’s love.
But how will this happen if they will not to?
 
Hello Arte.
Vico;12176801:
Hi Vico,
You have actually half answered the question yourself about my reasoning logic that an archangel and a third of the angles in Heaven could not have defected resulting in God having to create Hell. In fact you have strengthened my disbelief in angels defecting by your quote. Under the writings of Father Harden Paragraph 38: Do all Christians believe that the angels were originally created in the state of grace?
This has been the common teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus Saint John Damascene says, “All the angels were created by the Word of God and perfected by the Holy Spirit through sanctification; corresponding to their dignity and to their order of rank, they became participators in the illumination and the grace”. Angels were** perfected **
by the Holy Spirit corresponding to their dignity and to their order of rank. If they were perfected by the Holy Spirit surely they cannot commit sin. An archangel is even more perfected because of his rank. As an ex military man of 26 years service, I can claim to be an expert on rank. So now we have angels who were perfected by the Holy Spirit and one of them is I guess equivalent to a Brigadier General because there are not many archangels and we have to leave space for more senior ranks in Heaven. A Brigadier General commands a Brigade and he would give 110% to the mission given to him by his seniors (in this case God) and he would only expect 100% from his brigade officers and soldiers. These perfected beings “live” in Heaven where there is** no sin.** So now you have doubled the logic behind the fact that an archangel and angels could not defect.

You need to do some research on the hierarchy of the angels. There are 9 Choirs of angels and an Archangel is second to last, not as you think a BG. The demons also have a mirrored hierarchy. Each Choir has certain abilities accorded to its rank. The devils also have retained their supernatural abilities after their fall. The sin that caused their fall was disobedience and as has already been said, it was irrevocable. The angels weren’t perfected, they were created perfect by God. Some rebelled out of jealousy. I’ve heard it said that the real reason Lucifer rebelled was because being able to see God as He is as an angel, Lucifer saw the Son in the Trinity and was jealous of Him and wanted to become equal to Him and thought he should be. Jealousy. That is what caused him to rebell and the others simple joined in. Then the great Battle occurred in which St. Michael, only an Archangel which BTW was of a lower rank than Lucifer, shouted for the rest of the angels to come to battle the fallen angels. They fallen angels were cast out of Heaven and God made a place for them, Hell or the Abyss is how it is sometimes referred to. It is out of the Abyss in the Book of Revelation that Satan is allowed from time to time for a time to try men. Learn about this stuff Arte, cause without the knowledge you need to NOT fall for errors, others can take advantage of your trust and build on your ignorance. The devil loves ignorance. He uses it to destroy faith before it is properly formed. He has help from folks called heretics. They willingly promote “alternatives” to solid Catholic teaching that seems plausible at first. But upon closer examination you begin to see it unravel like a bad knit job on a sweater.

I’ve said too much again. Forgive me.

Glenda
 
Hello again Arte.

The Good News is after the fall all the Choirs of angels were weeded out of the bad guys and those left only perform God’s will perfectly. So be a little angel and do as God says.

Glenda
 
Hello Arte.
arte;12182078:
You need to do some research on the hierarchy of the angels. There are 9 Choirs of angels and an Archangel is second to last, not as you think a BG. The demons also have a mirrored hierarchy. Each Choir has certain abilities accorded to its rank. The devils also have retained their supernatural abilities after their fall. The sin that caused their fall was disobedience and as has already been said, it was irrevocable. The angels weren’t perfected, they were created perfect by God. Some rebelled out of jealousy. I’ve heard it said that the real reason Lucifer rebelled was because being able to see God as He is as an angel, Lucifer saw the Son in the Trinity and was jealous of Him and wanted to become equal to Him and thought he should be. Jealousy. That is what caused him to rebell and the others simple joined in. Then the great Battle occurred in which St. Michael, only an Archangel which BTW was of a lower rank than Lucifer, shouted for the rest of the angels to come to battle the fallen angels. They fallen angels were cast out of Heaven and God made a place for them, Hell or the Abyss is how it is sometimes referred to. It is out of the Abyss in the Book of Revelation that Satan is allowed from time to time for a time to try men. Learn about this stuff Arte, cause without the knowledge you need to NOT fall for errors, others can take advantage of your trust and build on your ignorance. The devil loves ignorance. He uses it to destroy faith before it is properly formed. He has help from folks called heretics. They willingly promote “alternatives” to solid Catholic teaching that seems plausible at first. But upon closer examination you begin to see it unravel like a bad knit job on a sweater.

I’ve said too much again. Forgive me.

Glenda
According to EWTN broadcast, if I recall correctly, a priest said Church tradition
holds Lucifer saw a vision of our Lord as a man and rebelled because he was jealous of men being in the likeness and image of God and that they were inferior. Lucifer’s pride is the cause of his rebellion.
 
Yours is the sin of presumption.

That is what comes from working in the dark.

This makes me wonder if you have ever bothered to read the Catechism…
So there is a serious flaw and definitely a problem in your thinking.

This is simply you editorializing, not even worth responding to.

I’m frankly really not interested in another “interpretation” from you. I got this sort of thing as a protestant, “this is what this verse means to me…”

., IOW to get your ego out of the way
More editorializing;
No amount of pontificating on your part…
Again, I pose the question, would you speak to your mother this way, to a priest? To Jesus? Have you become a bit desensitized over the years? There is a big difference between being “frank” and being discourteous. Have you forgiven me yet? I am not hearing it in your voice.
Self condemnation is clarity of the soul, “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, for the truth is not in us.”(1 Jn 1:8); self-condemnation is humility, it is the recognition of the truth.
Self-condemnation is the work of our God-given conscience. I am assuming that your conscience allows you to speak to others in the way you have spoken to me. My conscience does not allow me to speak that way to you. Is your voice one of humility? Please, think about it. Pray about it.
As far as forgiveness goes, I’m not so self interested that I keep score of every instance where my “feelings” may or may not have been hurt. I’m neither offended by frank speech(as you appear to be).
I’ll tell you what. If you have the humility, show your responses to my posts to a priest or someone else you love and respect, and let them guide you to a more courteous, polite, way of discussion. I am going to assume that you want to communicate the love of Christ, but frankly, you are not showing me.

In the mean time, consider these General Guidelines for speaking to Non-Catholics on the forum. They really should apply to discourse with anyone on the forum:

General Guidelines
• Always abide by the forum rules.
• Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
• Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.
• Questions are a better approach than assertions, unless the latter are framed in a non-confrontational and non-accusatory manner.
• Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.
• Rhetorical questions may be used to introduce a new aspect of inquiry but not to evade challenges or to call into question the intelligence, education, or any other personal qualities of another poster.
• It is acceptable to question policies and practices
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
• It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.
• If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.
 
Again, I pose the question, would you speak to your mother this way, to a priest? To Jesus? Have you become a bit desensitized over the years? There is a big difference between being “frank” and being discourteous. Have you forgiven me yet? I am not hearing it in your voice.

Self-condemnation is the work of our God-given conscience. I am assuming that your conscience allows you to speak to others in the way you have spoken to me. My conscience does not allow me to speak that way to you. Is your voice one of humility? Please, think about it. Pray about it.

I’ll tell you what. If you have the humility, show your responses to my posts to a priest or someone else you love and respect, and let them guide you to a more courteous, polite, way of discussion. I am going to assume that you want to communicate the love of Christ, but frankly, you are not showing me.

In the mean time, consider these General Guidelines for speaking to Non-Catholics on the forum. They really should apply to discourse with anyone on the forum:

General Guidelines
• Always abide by the forum rules.
• Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
• Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.
• Questions are a better approach than assertions, unless the latter are framed in a non-confrontational and non-accusatory manner.
• Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.
• Rhetorical questions may be used to introduce a new aspect of inquiry but not to evade challenges or to call into question the intelligence, education, or any other personal qualities of another poster.
• It is acceptable to question policies and practices
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
• It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.
• If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.
This coming from one who has implied that I’m a “psycho/sociopath”.

There are several of those guidelines for which you yourself would do well to follow.

Humility is recognition of the truth, and by that definition I stand. Humility is not bowing to unsound opinions simply because you believe them, especially when they contradict Scripture and the Church.

Now, you are not Jesus I.e., you do not have His authority. And in no way did Jesus speak as you do. In fact no one in Church history even though that sincerety was sufficient for salvation until the last 200 years(and that’s being generous). Your opinion is a novelty, and at the least a heterodox one.

And when your opinion differs from His or the Church’s, humility demands that you or anyone must defer to that authority, not your subjective opinion.

You are not my mother, either.

You have, again, introduced a giant Red Herring by avoiding the subject matter and to distract by making this about me instead of addressing the points I made.

If this is your only response when you cannot admit to the lack of congruity between your opinions and that of Scripture or Church teaching, if your only appeals are that of your own authority, or to emotion, to ridicule, etc., then I’m wasting my time and yours.

My final point will be this:

This entire discussion you have been claiming that ignorance/blindness mitigates all guilt or enough that the criteria for mortal sin is not met.

Basically that ignorance is not merely bliss, according to your view of Jesus, but blessedness.

Does Jesus say “blessed are the ignorant”? I don’t think so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top